Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!dg!cheshirecat!lewine From: lewine@cheshirecat.webo.dg.com (Donald Lewine) Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks Subject: Re: benchmarks (SPECmarks) Message-ID: <1148@dg.dg.com> Date: 16 Nov 90 14:55:07 GMT References: <7581@eos.arc.nasa.gov> <1146@dg.dg.com> <7589@eos.arc.nasa.gov> Sender: root@dg.dg.com Reply-To: uunet!dg!lewine Organization: Data General Corporation Lines: 41 In article <7589@eos.arc.nasa.gov>, eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya) writes: |> In article <1146@dg.dg.com> uunet!dg!lewine writes: |> > But SPEC took a particular VAX-11/780. The 11/780 time for |> > gcc is 1482 seconds. It is not what you get on your particular |> > VAX. This is more like taking a gold bar in Paris and saying |> > that is the standard meter. As look as there is only one gold |> > bar, that is not a problem. |> |> Particular: that's right. Two things to add: 1) DEC knew that the |> performance of 780 models varied by as much as 10%. Is 10% acceptable? |> In some cases yes, others no. You are still missing the point. Here are the reference execution times for the SPECmarks: gcc 1482 Seconds expresso 2266 Seconds spice 2g6 23951 Seconds doduc 1863 Seconds nasa7 20093 Seconds li 6026 Seconds eqntott 1101 Seconds matrix300 4525 Seconds fpppp 3038 Seconds tomcatv 2649 Seconds These numbers will not vary by 10%. They will not vary by .001%. They are fixed. Ignore the fact that they were measured by someone on a VAX someplace. They are now the definition of 1.000 SPECmarks of performance. Maybe the 11/780 was not a good choice for a base, but at this point it does not matter. The reference is *NOT* the 780 but the numbers listed above. THERE IS NOT VARIATION! -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Donald A. Lewine (508) 870-9008 Voice Data General Corporation (508) 366-0750 FAX 4400 Computer Drive. MS D112A Westboro, MA 01580 U.S.A. uucp: uunet!dg!lewine Internet: lewine@cheshirecat.webo.dg.com